38 
residents of the immediate region. Such unhesitatingly 
declared that they had never met with the new fish prior 
to 1883 or 1884. They regarded the oguassa (or ‘‘Quashy,”’ 
as it began to be called) either as a descendant of some of 
the salmonoids introduced into Sunapee in 1867 and suc- 
ceeding years by the Fish Commissioners, or asa cross be- 
tween one of these forms and the native brook trout. In 
no other way could they account for its sudden appear- 
ance in large and steadily increasing numbers. 
A theory of descent from blue-backs imported from 
Maine in 1879 by Commissioners Webber and Powers as a 
food supply for the larger Salmonide, was soon set aside 
on the ground that the little trout of the Rangeleys rarely 
exceeds $ pound in weight, and could not possibly, even 
if supplied with an abundance of appropriate food and ex- 
posed to the tonic effects of a favorable change of waters, 
ever attain the aldermanic proportions of the Sunapee 
charr. Moreover, Dr. Bean, in a scholarly paper pub- 
lished in the American Angler and the Forest and Stream, 
February, 1888, called attention to six essential points of 
difference between the Sunapee trout and the blue-back, 
thus effectually disposing of the argument. 
The theory of natural hybridism found few supporters 
among ichthyologists, and no introduction of charr other 
than the Rangeley Salvelinus fontinalis and Salvelinus 
oqguassa could be proved, as none had been officially re- 
ported. From the first, Col. Hodge, believing in the ex- 
istence of a similar charr in the Province of Quebec, cham- 
pioned the theory of aboriginality, ingeniously combating 
every objection made to it: 
I. That so conspicuous a food fish could not for 100 
years have escaped the notice of anglers, poachers and 
scientists alike—by showing how the habits of the white 
trout protected it from observation and persecution, it be- 
ing rarely seen except late in October on mid-lake reefs, 
that is, at a time of year when angling was out of season, 
